“THE FORMATION OF A MAJORITY SHOULD BY NO MEANS BE REGARDED AS THE BEGINNING OF A POLITICAL REFORM”
“We thought it necessary to invite you, the first President of independent Ukraine and an experienced politician, to join the debate touched up by the head of state’s Independence Day proposals to reform this country’s political system. Frankly speaking, many were struck by the speech you gave at the newly-elected parliament. It can be said to be untypical, first of all, because it stressed disrespect for the political reform procedure. We would like first to hear your general assessment of the prospects for a new form of government. To what extent does this step fit in with global tendencies, when personal safety becomes a category of public consciousness (which became especially evident after September 11)? On the other hand, can the attempt of reinforcing legislative power in our conditions (in the absence of a civil society and a developed media market) end up in the ‘Moldovan option’?”
“Forming the system of government is society’s highest function. So any light-minded attitude to this formation will inevitably bring down the prestige of power. And if there occur any serious departures from the Constitution and laws, power can be pronounced illegitimate, which will cause it to lose any impact on the situation. We have just dropped a regime under which governing bodies were formed by decision of Communist Party congresses, plenary meetings, and the Politburo rather than under the laws and the Constitution. At that time, laws served as a ‘fig leaf’ to cover up the rule of the Party on which the then political system pivoted. So I, as the first president of independent Ukraine, faced great difficulties in forming the system of government. For example, it as once decided to establish the institution of power-vested presidential representatives in the regions, about which the Constitution did not say a single word. Therefore, this institution was set up under a law passed by Verkhovna Rada. As a result, the whole term of my presidency was marred by a conflict between the presidential representatives and the local government bodies. So in the conditions of a standoff between the president’s followers and the Communists, who advocated returning to the ‘Soviets,’ it was necessary to seek out the new ways of establishing genuine governing bodies with genuine powers enshrined in the Constitution. This resulted in the presidential decree dated January 9, 1994 (incidentally, I have it now in my briefcase), on the dissolution of Verkhovna Rada, one of the paragraphs of which deals with the electability of deputies. In other words, from the very outset I followed the line that the powers of governing bodies should be inscribed in the laws and the Constitution.
“However, when Mr. Kuchma won the presidential elections, he began to reinforce, step by step, the executive system from top to bottom. He pursued this line systematically and consistently. Let us recall, for instance, the constitutional deal, which drastically increased the president’s power and, at the same time, reduced the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers and its head to purely technical functions. Now let us see if we have this top-to-bottom system. Today, city mayors — who represent 75% of the population — are not directly subordinated to executive power bodies. Besides, under the Constitution, the government which bears responsibility for pursuing the economic and social policies and implementing the adopted programs is accountable to parliament and the President. However, it has no influence on ministerial appointments. Is the Cabinet head, for example, able to form his team by himself?”
“This seems to have been allowed once.”
“Yes, allowed, but it should be inscribed in the law. Let us draw a parallel with today. All are talking about the President’s goodwill as to the political reform: the President gave in, as it were... But my personal experience says that any deals of today are rather precarious. While at the dawn of capitalism there were gentleman clubs, where partnership deals were stronger than any laws, now a violation of the country’s Fundamental Law, let alone a deal, is interpreted as wisdom: ‘Look at the way he gypped them.’ But, for some reason, nobody cares about violations in the constitutional process (I mean the nationwide referendum of 2000). The Fundamental Law says clearly that no amendments can be made to the Constitution on the basis of referendum results — the Constitution can only incorporate the changes passed by parliament. In other words, I mean power bodies should be organized in close conformity with the Constitution. For if your first step is wrong, then everything will get out of control.”
“Does this mean you take a dim view of the ‘consolation prize’ in the shape of a coalition government?”
“Let us face facts. Today Verkhovna Rada is in a protracted crisis. So I support the President’s idea of forming a parliamentary majority. Yet, there is no constitutional norms today that would govern the activities of this majority. We once saw the latter breaking apart.”
“Incidentally, Viktor Medvedchuk told The Day still before the parliamentary elections that the then majority exited on the basis of a ‘gentleman’s agreements.’ Yet, when asked ‘What about gentlemanliness?,’ he said ‘It was OK, but they listened to the tapes and went home.’”
“He said the right thing about the ‘gentleman’s’ agreement. The deputies got together, made a deal to form the majority and adopted an agreement that no laws envisage. Something like this is happening today. This is why I consider it unconstitutional to urgently form the majority and the government. The Constitution clearly spells out the procedure of government formation: the President moots the candidature of prime minister in parliament, the latter confirms him in office by 226 votes, and only then does the premier present the President a list of Cabinet members. But who will sign today a proposal from a hypothetical majority? Karpov?! No, because a proposal can only be signed by the Verkhovna Rada speaker or vice speakers (although the Constitution does not have this). At the same time, the majority is necessary for several reasons. Firstly, to stabilize the proceedings of Verkhovna Rada, secondly, to adopt the required laws, and, lastly, to establish cooperation between parliament and the government. So there are three reasons why parliament should form a majority.”
“But then some will say: is it worth forming a majority for the sake of an idea, not an office?”
“This is the reply. In other words, the idea is first to form the majority and only then to dish out portfolios in proportion. This calls back the year 2000, when deputies came up with algorithms that described in detail the mechanism of portfolio distribution.”
“This seems to have been called ‘package deal’...”
“Right. But today, before starting to form a government, the majority must gather and choose those to be replaced in this government. And if the President has a vision of his own, he must also reveal it at the meetings with all factions. We are now in fact being told to act by the principle ‘you form this, and then we will be making decisions,’ without knowing what to decide. So, while there is no motivation or legislative regulation, they still want to form a majority... Still, in my opinion, the formation of a majority should by no means be regarded as the beginning of a political reform because the latter calls for colossal amendments to the Constitution. It will be necessary to revise practically all chapters of the Fundamental Law, spelling out the powers of the President, Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers, and local government bodies. I stress these should be direct-action constitutional norms. But today they, unfortunately, exert neither a direct nor an indirect action (for example, the government has been working since 1994 without the law on the Cabinet of Ministers). This is why, frankly speaking, the President’s initiative came down on me ‘like a bolt from the blue.’ Quite recently, well after the parliamentary elections, the President continued to stick firmly to a strong executive top-to-bottom system, and now suddenly a reform...
“Another thing. We should not invent ‘the Ukrainian bicycle.’ We must see the models of European countries (presidential-parliamentary Poland and France) and identify what we strive for, with due account of Ukrainian specifics. I think we should start the political reform with forming a constitutional amendments commission.”
“THERE IS NOT AND WON’T BE A SINGLE CANDIDATE FRO PRESIDENT”
“Mr. Kravchuk, would you comment on the following. Opposition politicians as well as a number of experts and analysts believe that one of the factors that caused the presidential initiative is absence of a joint vision of the 2004 situation. In other words, as there is no generally- acceptable candidate, they agree, as an alternative option, to allow parliament to increase its own role. As to the other camp, everything is clear.”
“I do not think the president’s initiative was only caused by the absence of an acceptable candidate. There is not and won’t be a single candidate for president. In any case, we should expect at least two candidatures: one from, so to speak, the constructive and the other from the constructive-opposition bloc. One way or another, presidency will be contested by more than one acceptable candidature. I think there will be lots of them.”
“Let us get back to the political reform. What is your personal opinion about what form of government is most suitable for Ukraine, given the processes now underway?”
“A European-style democratic parliamentary-presidential republic would suit Ukraine best. But I doubt that we have chosen the best time for this. While the economic reform touches upon all people, the political one involves only some concrete individuals always connected with certain political structures. So if the political reform is to be launched right now (with the economy in dire straits and two years away from the presidential elections), we will risk failing to achieve any practical results. Moreover, it is impossible to instantly ruin the system that took eight years to build. For there are people, patterns, new commercial entities, and the old opposing corporate interests. This is why I believe a true political reform can only yield tangible results in 2006, when parliament has been formed on the proportional-representation basis.
“I think amendments should be made to the Constitution right now, so that the powers of president be determined before 2004. Otherwise, there will be no reform: parliament will be elected under the proportional or any other system (this will no longer matter), while presidential powers will remain at variance with the parliamentary-presidential model. Besides, this will immediately help presidential candidates to solve their problems, for they will know their true powers. It is obvious even today that people who picture themselves in the 2004 presidential campaign oppose any changes in powers.”
“Let us say it straight...”
“These are Viktor Yushchenko and Yuliya Tymoshenko. All- embracing powers take the breath away from the people who have always been somewhere around, rather than on top of, the political Olympus. Yet, none of them ponders whether he/she is able to execute the given powers in compliance with the Constitution and the laws. This means there will be problems in parliament because these democratic patriotic forces (as they call themselves) see Mr. Yushchenko as their leader and want him to be president with the same powers as Mr. Kuchma is now vested with.”
“You say this kind of reform is ill-timed now. Incidentally, Mr. Yushchenko says the same.”
“I mean it is now the right time to make amendments to the Constitution. Yushchenko does not say this. He says nothing at all is needed. Undoubtedly, there must be a situational majority to establish cooperation with the government. But this is not yet a reform. Of course, the process can be set into motion but all this should be put into practice after the presidential elections. Thus, the implementation of constitutional provisions will be timed with the next parliamentary elections of 2006.”
“Mr. Kravchuk, the President’s address also focused on reforming the election law, namely, switching over to proportional representation. What is your vision of the parliamentary election system? Is it worth establishing a bicameral parliament simultaneously with a proportional system of elections? Incidentally, many consider it unexpected that the President should have proposed the proportional system, for he had imposed 6 vetoes on the law to this effect...”
“There are diverse opinions about this rapid change of the President’s attitude. Some politicians and functionaries of various levels can be heard speculating that the President gave in to the opposition’s demands. But I am personally far from making such a conclusion. I think this was done on the basis of a deep analysis of how government is organized in many countries.
“Now about the proportional system. It may have different shades and particularities. There is a proportional system whereby the electorate cast their votes for the whole list of candidates in the constituency, not just for the top five. In this case elections are transparent; ours was a different case: the top five were given wide publicity, while the rest were unknown.
“Now you ask if we need a bicameral parliament. I do not think this is indispensable. After all, ours is not a federal state.”
“Still, 90% of the Donetsk oblast population (according to referendum results) are fervent supporters of federalism.”
“I would not like to hurt our populace, but I can name 190 deputies who don’t have the faintest idea of the differences between the presidential-parliamentary and the parliamentary- presidential models. The populace? The populace will believe every line they are being fed, while all the media have been maintaining that implementation of the referendum results and establishment of a bicameral parliament is the beginning of our resounding successes...”
“This means citizens voted for ‘a pig in a poke.’ Nevertheless, the choice was made but parliament in fact ignores the implementation of these decisions. Do we need today to get back to the nationwide referendum results?”
“I think we must forget this. Now the question is about making changes in and supplements to the Constitution in a broad sense. At the same time, the referendum questions about transition to the parliamentary-presidential form must be taken into account in this reform. Therefore, implementation became part of our ‘great’ effort to switch over from the presidential-parliamentary to the parliamentary-presidential model, while considering this issue only from the angle of implementation means going back to square one.”
“IF WE BROUGHT ANGELS TO POWER, THEY WOULD GROW HORNS AFTER SOME TIME.”
“Mr. Kravchuk, could we get back to the subject of proportional-representation elections. Maybe this is not only a concession to the opposition — there must be some subtler factors. The lasting impression is that government has not been promoting, to say the least, the formation of strong parties over all these years. So how can a proportional election be held in the absence of such parties?”
“I absolutely agree with you. What is more, the question is not only in non-promotion. I can even quote some topmost officials as saying that political parties are not prepared to take part in the formation of governmental bodies. Nobody lifted a finger to support the parties with funds, not only with words. Besides, there was a time when governors, citing the impossibility of being party members as an excuse, pleaded with the President for departization and depolitization. In other words, they reduced themselves to the rank of technical workers, which again proves the same: decisions are not made at the oblast level.
“Sometimes we make very fast decisions. Naturally, we usually just have no time for thinking over, but still fast leaps, fast decisions, and fast assessments have a very negative effect not only on the formation but also on the prestige of government.”
“Now all are in rapture over the prospects of a strengthened parliament. But there must be some counterweight, a clearly stated procedure of dissolution. Under what circumstances do you think parliament should be dissolved?”
“Well, at least not for the non- passage of budget. It must be dissolved when the majority failed to form the government and approve its program. That’s all. Nothing else. Yet, there must be the mechanism of presidential impeachment. Mikhail Bulgakov wrote, ‘If we brought angels to power, they would grow horns after some time.’ The President keeps focusing on the dissolution of parliament, but he must also focus on impeachment. For the point is not in Mr. Kuchma but in the office of president. Both the legislative and the executive powers must interact in such a way and have such a mechanism of balances and counterbalances that everyone could feel the danger of losing power under certain circumstances. In that case power will be observing the law and the Constitution and will do its job seriously.”
“Let us imagine the following situation: the majority has formed the government and then fails to approve the budget proposed by this government.”
“The majority cannot do so. It will form the government and be drawing up the budget together with the latter. This is worldwide practice. Our current Verkhovna Rada often resembles a clinical laboratory. It waits for something brought to be tested. When something has been brought, it says, ‘No, it’s wrong. Give us something else.’ In a parliamentary-presidential republic — and this is an advantage — deputies work together with the government over the budget, the programs, so voting becomes just a formal procedure.”
“SOME ‘VACILLATE’ LIKE AN AIR SCREW — YOU CAN’T SEE THEM”
“It would be interesting to hear your opinion about such thing as parliamentary corruption. Word has it that parliamentary votes can be bought and that Verkhovna Rada passes laws for money. Does this exist or not? If it does, how can this be eradicated?”
“Parliamentary corruption does exist both in and outside VR. It is inevitable, given our laws and our powers. For example, a deputy bears no responsibility for his speeches in Verkhovna Rada.”
“Maybe this is good?”
“No. He must bear responsibility. Absence of responsibility results in quarrels and sometimes fist fighting. The only question is to define this responsibility. The deputy is now responsible only if he insults somebody — but this insult still has to be proved.”
“In the case of the mass media, proof is no problem.”
“Well, this is corporate attack on the media, but what I said above is protection of own interests.
“Now suppose everybody wants his faction to be the largest. To this end, they buy the deputies over. I don’t know the way it is done because I have seen this. But I know there are factions which actively support the deputies who defect to them.”
“What about the amounts?”
“I don’t know. I do not want to spread the rumors that circulate. I have not seen this myself. There are various figures in the air: from $5000 a month upwards.”
“How can this be prevented?”
“Perhaps by catching someone red-handed. But this is impossible. One can always say this is a loan. This cannot be eradicated as long as deputies are poorly provided for. Nowadays, some of them sit four-to-five in one room.”
“There seem to be no poor people among the deputies.”
“I mean the conditions of work. They are not poor precisely because they manage to find such ways. This must be set out in legislative acts. In the US, if you come into parliament, you feel it is Parliament.”
“Maybe all we need to do is put lobbyism within a certain framework?”
“Yes, a relevant law is needed. But, as long as there is an opportunity of the original accumulation of capital and the desire to change cars every month, have new houses built and travel, there will be bribes.”
“Do you consider it realistic to turn some opposition figures over to the nine factions? And what can guarantee the stability of this majority?”
“There can be deals with the opposition. I mean Our Ukraine again. If you analyze the previous Verkhovna Rada’s work, you will find that most laws were passed by the factions that now make part of Our Ukraine and others, such as the Communists, Socialists and Progressists. There is a certain political and ideological platform — European option, democracy, etc. — regarding the development of Ukraine over which many factions can come together. But Our Ukraine must be offered concrete things, otherwise it will not agree to participate in the majority.”
“As soon as we said ‘opposition,’ you recalled the Yushchenko bloc. Do you consider OU as opposition and, if so, what kind of it?”
“This is peculiar opposition. It staggers so rapidly and adroitly around the line they call position that sometimes this staggering dotted line crosses the line of the opposition. Then it is difficult to understand what camp OU belongs to. Mr. Yushchenko’s statements and speeches are also rather peculiar and ‘philosophically transcendental.’ I named the Yushchenko bloc as a likely majority partner because what the programs of the parties that form the bloc feature — Ukraine’s strategic interests, security, the ways of development and European integration — coincides with what we, Social Democrats, propose. Conversely, the ways of development proposed by the Communists run counter to what we do. This is why we cannot view them as a potential majority faction — except perhaps for a few deputies.”
“If Mr. Yushchenko’s demands are not met, is another velvet revolution possible in parliament?”
“No, Mr. Yushchenko will be working in the same mode. He will vacillate like all the others will. The trouble is some of them ‘vacillate’ like an air screw — you can’t see them.”
“Can this be a tactic aimed at the year 2004?”
“It can be a tactic. Clearly, Mr. Yushchenko is a genuine leader of the national patriotic forces. I saw this during the elections. At least in Western Ukraine, he enjoys big support. But he knows that even wide popularity in the west is not enough for being elected president. Unless he is supported by the east — Donetsk, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovsk — and the Crimea, he will stand no chance. For this means 27 million voters. This is why Yushchenko balances and speaks in so vague philosophical terms that it is difficult to grasp what he is driving at. In the parliamentary elections, OU firmly opposed those in power. They would call for an immediate change of power. I then asked them, ‘Change in what way? On the street, at public rallies?’ But ‘a revolution has the beginning but has no end.’ This won’t do — everything should be done in line with the law. Now I can say: Mr. Yushchenko is being erratic. Only time will show what he is after.”
“But this does not much affect his rating. Can the people turn blind to this and vote for the presidential candidate who maneuvers best, not the one who takes a firm position?”
“This can happen. When Yushchenko became premier, he took advantage of all the Pustovoitenko government’s achievements, providing people with pensions and wages. Then, a year or so later, we dismiss him. The Social Democrats cast a ‘yes’ vote. A cousin of mine phones me urgently from Rivne oblast. ‘What have you done?’ she says. ‘I have forgotten the color of money in the past six months. Yushchenko came and gave me money.’ So this ‘Yushchenko gave money’ still lingers in public memory. But what he says now is unclear to half the people. Sometimes I also wonder what he means by this or that. And were Yushchenko to become head of the Cabinet now and do something of the kind again (which is quite possible), this would pave him the way to presidency.”
“SDPU (o) had a lot of friendly media but still it failed to poll a great many votes. Why did it happen?”
“There are many reasons why we did not poll the number of votes we were supposed to. Let me start with the internal factor. I don’t think the image-making technologies we had borrowed from abroad proved effective in Ukraine, for they do not take into account the mentality and specifics of our people. Now the external factor: topmost officials, while publicly calling for cooperation or, at least, non- quarreling during the elections, were in fact doing the opposite in the regions. Now I’ve been told in Kyiv oblast and other regions that local administration heads were gathered and told, ‘No SDPU (o). Only For a United Ukraine!’ Naturally, the whole administrative resource was utilized in favor of FUU, not us. In other words, although we supported the leadership’s constructive actions, local bosses in fact considered us an opposition force. These are the two main reasons. What also negatively affected the overall result was the fact that the party nominated figures burdened with the past and their own problems (I include myself here, too). But I will say frankly: we took it calmly because we had redoubled our gains over the four years. It is, as a rule, the elite and youth who cast their votes for us without any duress.”
“Is the current Verkhovna Rada’s structure final?”
“If we fail to form the majority and Our Ukraine does not clearly identify its goals, this megafaction can disintegrate.”
“UKRAINE IS TO FILE A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP”
“How would you assess and forecast Ukraine’s NATO prospects?”
“Looking over the laws and decisions made by VR and the President since 1993, we will see that these documents clearly presuppose the European choice and Ukraine’s entry into all the European organizations, such as the Council of Europe, the European Union, NATO, etc. All Ukraine has to do, in my opinion, is file a formal application for NATO membership. Otherwise, there is no sense in talking about NATO, and this issue should be struck off the agenda. It is not very political to curry favor with both sides: to speak about the CIS in Moscow and about NATO in Brussels. It is political to show a clear choice.”
“But there was a National Security and Defense Council resolution of May 23 to launch a process that should culminate in NATO integration...”
“This is not an application. These are words. The application is a document. But I should say it is not yet time to do so, we are not yet prepared, we have to solve a lot of domestic problems in order to come to NATO or the European Union as a normal state, not as a pleade. I have been meeting lots of foreigners here and abroad. They are all unanimous, ‘You have not made a choice. Unless you make a choice, we cannot work with you transparently and openly.’”
“And how will parliament react to the executive power and the President saying that we are applying for NATO membership or something else? The Communist reaction is predictable. But in the centrist camp, too,
there are forces bent on lobbying Russian business interests.”
“Russia does nor care what Ukraine or, say, Kazakhstan will say. She maintains her own direct relations with NATO, being guided by national strategic interests. We must also do so. Parliament will naturally show a mixed reaction. This matter needs to be seriously discussed. I remember Bulgakov’s novel The Devil — the conversation between an experienced counterintelligence colonel and a young officer. ‘Sir, how come such a big country as Russia has collapsed so suddenly and fast?’ The colonel mused and then said, ‘There are many causes, but I will name two. Firstly, Russia suffered from word incontinence. Secondly, instead of nurturing ideas and organizational forms, the tsar house let loose a torrent of the miscomprehension of people and the very nature of power.’ If there is no clarity and definiteness, if somebody spews out empty soundbites and somebody else wants to cash in on these words, there will be no good result. Ukraine must know her place, role, and potential in the global process and must not try to bite more than she can chew. For example, I am surprised with our initiatives to mediate and assist in something. I am humiliated as a human being when we promise something that we know we cannot do for both subjective and objective reasons.”
“And, in conclusion, a philosophical question. Do you share Nikita Khrushchev’s viewpoint that one can get satiated with everything — women, money, or food — but power: the more you have it, the more you crave it?”
“Power is a drug. This is really so. Man is a natural and historical figure. Any natural system has a leader. From childhood, man strives to play some leading role. But history topped this natural aspiration with veneration, preferences, the adoration of images and icons. Man often forgets that he is inferior to the epithets that characterize him because his entourage, which thinks about itself, not about him, begins to impose this point of view. Suffice it to look at what is going on in this respect in the former Soviet Central Asia republics.”
“And were you personally sorry to lose power?”
“Naturally. But I said openly that presidents are not a dynasty; it is not tsarist power handed down from generation to generation. Presidents are electable. I am always ready to run for office, but I will never consider it a tragedy — and I never did so — if I am not elected. Yet, those elections (in 1994 — Ed.) were unconstitutional. Had the Constitutional Court existed at the time, I would have just referred the VR resolution to it and the court would have overruled it — because the Constitution did not have even a hint about early elections on such grounds.
“I was more interested in what there would be after the elections, in the attitude to me of the people and the authorities. At first I saw that the authorities took a dim view of me. Then we managed to find a common language perhaps thanks to the efforts of the external forces who entreated not to trample on the person who had relinquished power voluntarily. Power should be transferred in a civilized manner from president to president, from parliament to parliament, with traditions and respect for man remaining intact.”
